9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiny of ER-1 for the month of 2006, it was noticed that the appellant have availed cenvat credit paid on the input i.e. "Dough" vide Central Excise invoice Nos. 111 dt. 31/1/2006 and 472 dt. 28-2-2006 issued by M/s. Australian Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. As per the information received from the Range officer of Ambattur-IV Range, Chennai-II Division, a case has been registered on M/s. Australian Foods India Pvt. Ltd. for clandestine removal of "Dough" without payment of duty. The invoices on which the appellant availed the Cenvat credit does not contain the details of quantity cleared and rate. Since the supplementary invoices were invalid due to the fact that a case was registered alleging suppression against the company, a show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia has issued a 11C Notification No. 20/2009-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-8-2009 exempting the product "Dough" from payment of appropriate duty for the period 28-2-2005 to 27-5-2008. 5. Ld. Jt. CDR reiterates the findings of the first appellate authority and also submits provisions of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is his submission that credit ought not to have been taken by the appellant as it has been accepted by the manufacturer of Dough that there was a non-discharge of duty during the relevant period due to various reasons. 6.I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility to Cenvat credit of the duty paid through supplementary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exist. On this factual matrix, I find that the 11C Notification issued by the Govt. of India would clearly cover the issue as to there was always an intention to exempt these goods and if that intention was there, then the manufacturer M/s. Australian Foods Ltd., need not have paid the duty but having paid the duty, today the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of cenvat credit and the same cannot be questioned by the Revenue. In view of above, I find that the impugned order upholding the reversal of the credit taken, is liable to be set aside and I do so. 8. As regards the Revenue's appeal, since the impugned order that has upheld the reversal of the credit is set aside, Revenue's appeal does not survive and imposition of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
